1993 PLP 2500 (MLD)
ZULFIKAR ALI AULAKH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Rana NAZIR AHMAD KHAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2500 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | ZULFIKAR ALI AULAKH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Rana NAZIR AHMAD KHAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2500 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2500 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2500 (MLD) (ZULFIKAR ALI AULAKH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Rana NAZIR AHMAD KHAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Saleem Ullah Sohail for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th September 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑5. 14‑‑‑Nomination papers‑‑‑Acceptance of‑‑‑Objection to‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers of a candidate was challenged on ground that candidate was a defaulter of an amount exceeding Rs.10 lacs‑‑‑Name of candidate was not shown as a defaulter in the list of Pakistan Banking Council supplied to Returning Officer‑‑‑Objections were taken by objecter before Returning Officer simply on basis of some newspaper and he could not produce any letter or document from Authorities nor did he produce any letter from any authorised person of any bank that candidate was a defaulter‑‑‑Tribunal refused to interfere with order accepting nomination papers of candidate.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑5. 14‑‑‑Nomination papers‑‑‑Acceptance of‑‑‑Objection to‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers of a candidate was challenged on ground that candidate was a defaulter of an amount exceeding Rs.10 lacs‑‑‑Name of candidate was not shown as a defaulter in the list of Pakistan Banking Council supplied to Returning Officer‑‑‑Objections were taken by objecter before Returning Officer simply on basis of some newspaper and he could not produce any letter or document from Authorities nor did he produce any letter from any authorised person of any bank that candidate was a defaulter‑‑‑Tribunal refused to interfere with order accepting nomination papers of candidate. Ch. Saleem Ullah Sohail for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th September 1993. SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.‑‑‑The appellant who is contesting election from NA. 78, Gujranwala‑V, has challenged the order of the Returning Officer, accepting the nomination papers of Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan, respondent No.1.
2. Although learned counsel for the appellant had raised pleas in the memo of appeal that Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan respondent was disqualified for, being not "AMEEN" and for having amassed wealth and land by hoodwinking different persons but during arguments he did not press the points as he had no proof that Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan was ever entrusted with any amount or property as AMEEN. He did not press the latter point i.e. the amassing of vast property as there was no evidence that the wealth and land were obtained by fraudulent means. However, he pressed the appeal on the ground, that Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan was a defaulter of an amount exceeding Rs.10 lacs. He never claimed that name of Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan was shown as a defaulter in the list of Pakistan Banking Council supplied to the Returning Officer. Although he had taken such objections before the Returning Officer but had done so only on the basis of some newspaper. Before us also he could not produce any letter or document from the Bankers Equity Limited or the Banking Council nor did he produce any letter from any authorized person of any Bank, that Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan was a defaulter in terms of Ordinance XIX of 1993.
3. In the circumstances, we find no material to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T/89/E. Appeal dismissed.